Defending People

the art and science of criminal defense trial lawyering

Warrantless DWI Blood Draws, and a Urinary Catheter

Harris County intends to get a search warrant to draw blood from anyone who, having been arrested for DWI this (Memorial Day) weekend, refuses to provide a breath sample (Houston Chronicle). A judge will be on call to sign warrants and MADD will provide nurses to draw the blood.

In the 1966 Supreme Court case of Schmerber v. California the Court approved a warrantless blood draw based on probable cause for DWI on the theory that an emergency existed because the accused’s blood alcohol content might diminish while the police awaited a warrant. This weekend (when a warrant can be obtained within 10 or 15 minutes of a driver’s stop) such an emergency won’t exist, so if the police don’t get their PC affidavits and warrants right the blood test results will be suppressible.

Meanwhile, a Fort Bend County lawyer reports that the Sugar Land, Texas Police Department, after drawing blood, forcibly inserted a catheter into the penis of a DWI arrestee who had refused a breath test.

In Schmerber the Supreme Court wrote:

We thus conclude that the present record shows no violation of petitioner’s right under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. It bears repeating, however, that we reach this judgment only on the facts of the present record. The integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value of our society. That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States minor intrusions into an individual’s body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions.

A catheter is unquestionably a more substantial intrusion than a blood draw. Catheterization is painful, and bears a substantial risk of infection. Schmerber doesn’t support the Sugar Land officers’ action. Not only did they jeopardize the prosecution, but they (and the medical personnel who helped them) lined themselves up as the potential defendants in a large civil lawsuit.

Tags:


This entry was posted by Mark Bennett on Saturday, May 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

About The Author

Mark Bennett
Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

Leave a Reply

By submitting a comment here you give me permission to use your words in any way I like, including editing them for clarity, brevity, or content, as well as rearranging the words or the letters within them to change their very meaning. Those who engage in anonymous ad hominem attacks are the car-keyers of the internet, and will not be tolerated. If you engage in such attacks, I may edit the post to show your name or to make it appear that you are attacking yourself. Or both. I don't have to let you comment here. Don't do so for blatant marketing purposes; do so only to add to the discussion. Once you click "submit comment" you have given up all interest in your words to me, and have no further interest in your words. You agree never to sue, grieve, or complain to anyone about the use that I make of the letters you have typed. If you even threaten to do so, you agree that you will be held up to eternal public ridicule.

« “The Question” and Compassion     Hobbies »